>> "inside washington" is brought to you in part by the american federation of government employees -- proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org. >> what do you think a tree can be? can it be stronger than steel? can a tree be biodegradable plastic? can it be fuel for our cars or clothing or medicine that fights cancer? with our tree cell technology,

we think it can. weyerhaeuser, growing our roots. [applause] >> this week on "inside washington," the thrill of victory -- >> barack obama has been reelected the 44th president. >> the agony of defeat. >> this election is over, but our principles under. >> the year 2012 in review. >> the supreme court has upheld the requirement that every american by insurance. >> the year of the cliffhanger. >> raising tax rates is unacceptable. >> of natural disasters. >> it is like the apocalypse. >> and human tragedies. >> they are saying someone is shooting in the auditorium. >> of political fumbles. >> i have five seconds before you interrupted me. >> and shoppers. >> the seriousness of having a cia director involved in an

extramarital affair cannot be overplayed. >> as we look back, let's begin with the top political story of the year -- the reelection of president barack obama. as "time"'s magazine cover states -- the president was person of the year -- barack obama will be the first democrat in more than 75 years to win a majority of the popular vote twice. mitt romney has to be asking himself, given the magnitude of the president's problems and the great numbers of americans who believe that the country was headed in the wrong direction, "how did i lose?" at the republican national convention, a vermont couple took the stage to describe how mitt romney helped their

terminally ill 14- settle his affairs. people listening to that were in tears, but there never story -- but their story never made it to tv. instead, voters heard this. that is just a symptom of what went wrong in the campaign, and yet, as we observed here week after week, the president was vulnerable on so many levels. the economic recovery was moving at a snail's pace. there was great opposition to the affordable care act -- obamacare if you will -- he bombed in the first debate. voters saw a different from the than the candidate portrayed in the ad, but then there was a victory mark. >> the obama campaign was a brilliant, disciplined campaign. it had a very narrow route to victory, and it proceeded to follow it with incredible discipline and sense of direction, and they raised to a different level the organizational imperative in politics.

the 2004 bush campaign had been good, but remember this -- five of the last six elections, the republicans have failed to win the popular vote. mitt romney is in a succession. he is not an anomaly. >> the main reason for mitt romney's defeat, given those problems the president had. >> i do think if you had asked people at the end of 2011, the middle of 2011, it looked as if it were a slam-dunk for republicans. one of the reasons we are at this clip is that the republican resolution of the debt crisis in august 2011 was under the tacit assumption that they would control the white house, so who cares about everything stacked against them? i think the main cause was obama ran an absolutely brilliant campaign. republicans had a very weak field, and mitt romney was the best of a very weak field, and he himself was an odd candidate, given after the financial crisis, a man essentially of

wall street, and also a man who was -- an essential issue of the 2010 campaign where republicans have succeeded was obamacare, but he had passed something similar in massachusetts. he had two strikes against him which made it really difficult to win. >> i think obama won because republicans underestimated him, and they did it through a little self delusion that goes back to 2010 when they considered it to be a referendum on barack obama. it was not a referendum on barack obama. it was a referendum on the economy and the incumbent, but not barack obama the person. republicans thought it would be a slam-dunk in 2012, but what did they miss? they missed the fact that the turnout in 2010 was so far below what it was in 2008, and the people who did not turn out in 2010 -- young people, african- americans, women -- came out in

big numbers for barack obama because they never did leave him. what we saw in 2012 was almost 2008 before. 2010 was an anomaly and they read too much into it and underestimated obama. >> according to "the boston globe," a couple of days before election day, mitt romney's manager signed in the to the effect that the race was unmistakably moving in mitt romney's direction. how could they have been so wrong? >> denial. in the polling, they assumed a smaller turnout by democrats than they got, but what they were really guilty of was phenomenal cautiousness, over caution. they felt they could win simply on the economy. that if the economy was bad, they would win by default. as a result, they allowed the democrats to define their guy as a clueless, out of touch rich

guy and did nothing to rebut that, even though i think mitt romney is a much better person than they allowed him to appear to the american public. they were so cautious, so careful. they were afraid of more monism. they blew it. >> alright, take a look at this, please. -- they were afraid of mormonism. >> the boardwalk, the sons of my childhood no longer exist. >> after hurricane city ravaged the nation, the nation's top chris christie, a romney supporter, buddying up to president obama. >> when you know you have a responsibility to those folks, you could give a damn about the politics. i could care less about politics. >> what is chris christie's future? >> re-election looks quite probable, to the point where the mayor of newark, seen as his

principal opponent, has decided to look in other venues to pursue his own political future. he recorded the highest favorable job rating ever found in any governor of new jersey after his handling of sandy. >> did that natural disaster and the reaction of governor christie and the reaching out to the president -- did that help president obama? >> it certainly did. i do not think it was decisive. if the election had been held a week earlier and you look at the polls, and to was a lot closer. i think obama would have won, but it would not have been an electoral landslide. i think his 2.8% advantage in the popular vote probably would have been a pointless. people ask how important obama's reaction, handling of sandy was, 9% said it was the most important issue. i think 18% said it was one of the most important issues. a very high number.

if you look at the trajectory of the polls, it clearly had an effect, but i do not think it was a decisive effect. i think the roots of the defeat of romney were a lot deeper than that. >> chris christie is a harbinger of the future in a sense. he is an imperfect messenger because he has a weight problem and a little bit too much of a mouth on him, but set into the american people that the american people do not care about politics, and they want them to accomplish things and get things done -- that is a powerful message both sides have shied away from. he went right for it. i think that is the future. >> mitt romney is also guilty of some self-inflicted wounds. democrats tried to define him a certain way, but he defined himself. he defined himself clearly through that 47% remark he made in florida, but he was a plutocrat, and he talked the way of a plutocrat, and he did nothing to disabuse people of the fact -- the appearance of being and out of touch rich guy.

>> i believe you wanted to give chris chris c. and attaboy, right? >> i do. beyond mitt romney saying he liked being able to fire people, i do think the best line in the most trenchant line given in either convention was his statement that our problems are big and the solutions will not be painless. we all must share in the sacrifice, and any leader the says differently is simply not telling the truth. that made the romney/ryan people uncomfortable. it ought to make all of us uncomfortable because he was the only leader who said that this year. >> we showed a little clip of the 47% thing, secretly recorded. do we have a favorite political gas? >> the president saying -- it did not cost him the election -- it should have -- saying if you have a business, you did not build that. people argue about the syntax, but if you look at the context of a demon the government built roads and bridges and all that, which i thought was pretty telling about the way he views

government versus the private sector. that is my nominee -- well, romney's was the most devastating because it reinforced a stereotype that obama had spent a lot of money doing in ads, and after that, he really could not shake it. >> what about binders full of women recruiting for him when he was governor of massachusetts? >> i think he topped that post- election with his description of obama winning because of the gifts that he gave. >> that was after the election. i am just wondering about the impact it had on women voters. >> he had this very -- he had very well-paid advisers. there were unbelievably cautious and thought he would win this by default. how we could put clint eastwood up there and not know what clint eastwood was going to say has to be the biggest single political blunder of the year. >> why did mike murphy not get involved in that campaign?

them and that money went after mike murphy, according to all reports. he had been responsible, key in his election as governor, but just on the women thing, one. -- mitt romney carried white women's vote 54% to 42%. i mean, that is a decisive, decisive victory. >> he carried married women. >> they underestimated the election, where they felt was they had no idea of the turnout. they were basing it on the turnout of george w. bush -- they ran better than george de b. bush did with white and women, a 77% white george w. bush won in 2004, now down to 71%, and it is going the other way. republicans are in serious trouble. >> but they ran higher with whites in the 2010 election. that caused them to conclude the wrong thing, that -- but barack obama was not on the ballot in

2010. >> unexplored story of the year -- white men dropping out. dropping out of the workforce, dropping out of the elections, just plain dropping out, getting social security, not doing anything, going hunting, fishing, just not in the game. >> i remember earlier in the year, it said the wild card was angry white men. what happened to them? >> that's what i'm talking about. they dropped out. as a percentage of the work force, they are dropping down. more and more on benefits, more and more not voting, just dropping out. >> that angry white men thing is a myth, created in 2004 with the republicans swept into the house because liberals could not imagine that the perfect order of nature had been overturned. it had to be explained by angry white men. i actually looked at the polls that year. there's nothing in them that would support that. >> the last six elections, democrats have carried a minimum of 18 save states, and there

will be -- and 242 electoral votes. republicans have to do something to get competitive. >> we will be back. do not worry. >> charles says he will be back. in politics, always expect the unexpected. more on the year in review. >> braking is coming in regarding the chief of the cia, david petraeus -- breaking news. i'm talking about expect the unexpected. who would have thought that the highly regarded head of the cia, general david petraeus, would quit his job because of an extramarital affair. a very disciplined man. is there a lesson for people in high-profile jobs in this? >> it is not a lesson they ever learn. the idea that it is unusual for the cia director to have an extramarital affair -- the sainted allen dulles used to give his wife a new diamond every time he commenced an extramarital affair. may be the rules are different, but you can go for it -- and believe me, there have been

subsequent cia directors -- >> do you want to name them? >> no, but i do not understand why the president did not just tell them to apologize and go back to work. >> really? do you agree with that? >> but he did not give the president a chance. as soon as he knew the story was coming up, he resigned. he announced it and announced his resignation. >> obama wanted 24 hours to think about it. >> but he in effect said he would step down. >> what i of the president said, " no, no, do not do that?" >> in fred kaplan's book, he has petraeus quoted, speaking to a counterinsurgency group, speaking to them, lecturing, saying, "i have a front page of the "washington post" role." and if you do not want to see something on the front page of the "washington post," do not do or say it.

he was caught by his public image, unlike most cia directors who do not have a public persona that they have developed and worked at. this was something that was nurtured, burnished, encourage, developed, subsidized by petraeus. >> at a time when the country had much more stable families and divorce rates were very low, we had fdr and eisenhower and kennedy who obviously had affairs, and they were not penalized. dulles has an airport named after him. it is after the family. maybe it was the diamond-giving every year that did it. >> the irony is at a time when divorce rates are 50%, and we

react with this sort of extreme reaction when we have a case of that happening with a high official -- >> i think he should be punished. he should pay a price, a public price, apologize, the shame, and he would be, but why can he not go back to work? >> i cannot answer that. let me ask a question -- to members of congress read polls? it is a serious question. a month ago, the gallup poll had the approval rating at 18%. it is an improvement over august's where it was 10%. the fiscal clip deal, the day after christmas, kali had the president's approval rating, 54%. republican members of congress, 26%. you would think that during their well-earned christmas break, both sides would have found a way to come to the other and get something done. >> this is not the fault of congress. congress is behaving like congress. this is the president's fault. the president needs to go to the country and explain why they need to get this done.

he has never done that. >> we are in different universes. i have heard him talk about it over and over, incessantly about why we should not go over the fiscal clip. it is congress's fall. congress created this fiscal cliff. it was their idea to make january 1 d-day. they did it. no one else impose this on them. >> the president has never gone to the nation and made a serious speech about debt. he ignored it the first two years. he appoints a commission that he studiously ignores for the next two years. that is why we are at the click now. he is not serious about the debt. none of his proposals in raise taxes on the rich. it is 8 cents on the dollar. it is a trivial amount of money, and he has never put any political capital in entitlement reform or tax reform. he will talk about it here or there. never invested any capital in it. >> i thought -- if it is such a

trivial amount, then why the squealing, the yelling, the hurt feelings of all of these plutocrats? i will say this -- right now, he is absolutely right. all the political advantage is with the president, but if this thing comes to a complete halt and falls, then there will be political blame across the board, and it will undermine all public confidence in the public sector. >> let me hold on just a second -- all political advantage is with the president? what is he running for? he won. this is a time for him to take some political hits and tell the truth for a change instead of trying to get some political advantage. >> a look at war and foreign policy in 2012. >> this time of war began in afghanistan, and this is where it will end. >> afghanistan is now the nation's longest war. more than two dozen americans had died in fighting it. in 2012, the president promised

that the end was in sight. what did our brave young men or women in uniform achieve in afghanistan in the year 2012? >> we lost a lot. we lost a lot. we can say it is a result of the president's there -- dare that they did find a some of the modern, but they are paying a terrible price. >> was the idea to go into afghanistan to get rid of al qaeda? and now they are fighting the taliban? how long does this go on? what is the rationale? >> i think the rationale disappeared years ago. i think obama had an opportunity when he came into office to make a decision, and he went for a replay of the surge in iraq, which succeeded in iraq, but he did not give -- i'm not sure

weather it would have had any chance, but he supplied a number of troops much lower than with the commanders had asked for, so it is the biggest sequential operation. you do the south and east. in the end, he decided he would end the surge before doing east. i still think given how unpopular the taliban are in afghanistan, there is no assurance that they will retake the country. i think what will happen is a return to the civil war, the no. alliance against taliban when we leave, and i think we cannot leave soon enough. >> what we have seen is the emergence of at least, by our standards, a more civilized and humane society with our encouragement, with our stewardship, with our protection, and with our muscle, and the real probability, if not likelihood -- maybe inevitability -- that we withdraw, that they will revert to the punishment of women, failure to educate, and i think

that weighs on our conscience. that is not justification for a war. >> i believe i read somewhere that they are talking about giving women a break, the taliban. >> we do not know. if we had left some years ago if al qaeda would have come back. you cannot prove that. >> all right, syria. how did the united states, how did the government, how did the administration handled syria? appropriately? and appropriately? enough? not enough? >> the good thing about the afghanistan and iraq forces that they are keeping us out of syria. >> syria could become a disaster. this is a country with a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, which are pretty active. we have allowed the saudis and qataris to arm the rebels, and

those are the people who have armed the islamists, so the islamists now have the upper hand among the rebels. the west -- the british and french and we and the turks -- did not do anything comparable with the non-islamic opposition. we are looking at a possible country that would divide into three or four like yugoslavia, or could become jihadist, and syria is a serious country. it is not libya or afghanistan, and it think we will regret having no influence on the outcome. >> monolithic opposition, and the fact is there are opponents of that regime that we would not want to be associated with, either. they are also radicals. that is the difficulty there. >> at what point do we say, a "that is enough?" in other words, we have a military service that is at the breaking point, deployment after deployment after deployment.

if we want to spread this across and in case the entire society in it -- a point that has been advocated by no less than stanley mcchrystal and mike mullen, the former chief of naval operations and joint chiefs of staff -- they are saying you cannot do this with an all-volunteer service. >> all right. final thoughts on the year 2012. >> after last night, i want a man who had the good sense to marry michelle obama. [applause] >> i am nominating former president bill clinton's democratic national convention speech in 2012 as the political speech of the year. anybody want to challenge me on that? >> i echo that. he galvanized that convention. he brought them to their feet. he galvanized the political party. they came out of there as a united party, and energize the party. >> and he has a huge approval rating. this was a man who was

impeached. >> there is a second and third life in american politics, and bill clinton proves it. the two most popular political figures in the united states are bill clinton and hillary clinton. he made a better case for barack obama and joe biden and barack obama and joe biden had ever made. the other thing about bill clinton's speech is he had the ultimate line in it -- "this economy was so bad even i could not have fixed it." >> i think you pointed out in the opening of the show what was the worst political moment, which was the clink east would wasting 12 minutes of prime time when just before, you have had these truly heart rending stories -- heartwarming stories about the humanity of the republican challenger, and also a bio which was not shown. that was a terrible tactical error. >> the reason why clinton's speech worked was because clinton is a force larger the nature and people knew it was bill clinton giving that speech.

so many political speeches are written by someone else, and they read that way. "inside washington finally -- >> finally, predictions for the year ahead in the supreme court. it will be a gun so year involving the supreme court possibly striking down the voting rights act, the subject of gay marriage, and even weather you can patent a gene. anyway, happy new year, everyone. >> happy new year to you, and the neck gets the last word -- nina gets the last word. thanks. we will see you next year. for a transcript of this broadcast, log onto insidewashington.tv. >> "inside washington" is brought to you in part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org.